Re: [Fwd: Re: [HACKERS] 8192 BLCKSZ ?]

2000-12-01 Thread mlw
Kevin O'Gorman wrote: > > mlw wrote: > > > > Kevin O'Gorman wrote: > > > > > > mlw wrote: > > > > Many operating systems used a fixed memory block size allocation for > > > > their disk cache. They do not allocate a new block for every disk > > > > request, they maintain a pool of fixed sized buf

Re: [Fwd: Re: [HACKERS] 8192 BLCKSZ ?]

2000-11-29 Thread mlw
Kevin O'Gorman wrote: > > mlw wrote: > > Many operating systems used a fixed memory block size allocation for > > their disk cache. They do not allocate a new block for every disk > > request, they maintain a pool of fixed sized buffer blocks. So if you > > use fewer bytes than the OS block size

Re: [Fwd: Re: [HACKERS] 8192 BLCKSZ ?]

2000-11-29 Thread mlw
Kevin O'Gorman wrote: > > mlw wrote: > > > > Tom Samplonius wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, mlw wrote: > > > > > > > Tom Samplonius wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, mlw wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > This is just a curiosity. > > > > > > > > > > > > Why is the default postgres

[Fwd: Re: [HACKERS] 8192 BLCKSZ ?]

2000-11-28 Thread mlw
Tom Samplonius wrote: > On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, mlw wrote: > > > Tom Samplonius wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, mlw wrote: > > > > > > > This is just a curiosity. > > > > > > > > Why is the default postgres block size 8192? These days, with caching > > > > file systems, high speed DMA disks